JUDGMENT
P.C. Pathak, J.
1. This is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the award dated 12-8-80, passed by the Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, in Claim Case No. 41 of 80.
2. Relevant facts are that the claimant (respondent No. 1) hired truck HRJ 1380 owned by the appellant for transporting six buffaloes from Mahendra Garh in Haryana to Raipur in Madhya Pradesh. The truck turned turtle near village Agri of Dematara Tehsil in district Durg on 9-7-1977. As a result of that, three buffaloes received injuries to the extent that two succumbed to them and one became lame. Rs. 6,000/- were claimed as compensation for the loss of two buffaloes, Rs. 1,600/-on account of injury to the leg of another buffalo and Rs. 1,000/- as transportation charges of three buffaloes. The driver of the said vehicle arranged another vehicle by which all the six buffaloes were transported to Raipur. Information as to the accident was received through a telegram. The claimant, therefore, came to Raipur. After verifying the correctness of the information, he sent a notice by regd. post acknowledgement due, on 29-9-77 to the appellant. Since the amount claimed was not paid, the claims was filed before the Tribunal.
3. On behalf of the appellant written statement was filed denying all the allegations. He also submitted that out of six, three buffaloes belonged to Sanwalram. According to him, the claimant being not the owner of the Buffaloes and a “third party” he was not entitled to claim compensation. While not disputing that the vehicle turned turtle, the appellant submitted that the buffaloes did not suffer any injury. According to him, they must, have died a natural death.
4. On pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed issues. After considering evidence on record the Tribunal held that the claimant was the owner of the buffaloes and was entitled to claim the compensation since the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck. The claim was, however, allowed for a sum of Rs. 5068/- together with interest @ rupees 4% per annum from the date of award till recovery. Aggrieved by this, the owner of the vehicle has filed the present appeal.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no legal evidence to prove that the buffaloes suffered injuries as a result of the accident arising out of the use of the vehicle. It was also submitted that the claimant was not a third party within the meaning of Section 110(1) (as) of the Act, and therefore, he was not entitled to file his claim before the Claims Tribunal.
6. I will take up the first question whether the claim for compensation on account of the damage done to the property simpliciter is maintainable before the Claims Tribunal.
7. Section 110 of the Act empowers the State Government to constitute Claims Tribunal for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising or both. However, no corresponding amendment in Section 110A of the Act was made authorising the owner of the property to make an application for compensation. This was inserted by Section 32 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1978 (47 of 1978). Clause 32 of the Bill indicated that Section 110A does not indicate the category of persons who can prefer claims for damages to property in an accident involving a motor vehicle. This clause seeks to amend to provide that in the case of a damage to any property, the owner of the property may file an application. A Division Bench of this Court in Banvarilal v. Vishnunarayan 1975 ACJ 40 laid down that claim for compensation for damage to the property simplicitor could be entertained by the Tribunal constituted under the Act. In that case accident took place on 20-1-71, subsequent to the coming into force of amendment to Section 110 of the Act by the Amendment Act No. 56 of 1969. The claim before the Tribunal was for compensation arising out of damage caused to a vehicle by another vehicle in collusion. The Tribunal took the view that on terms of the notification constituting it damages to the property and award of compensation therefore are not within its adjudicatory powers. This could held that such a narrow construction of the notification was not called for. Their Lordships held that the notification by itself by no means defined and delimited the powers to be exercised by the Tribunal. The Tribunal’s power derived directly from Sub-section (1) of Section 110 of the act. In 1969, the Parliament amended provisions of Section 110 whereby Tribunals’ jurisdiction was enlarged so as to cover the subject added by the amendment. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal was directed to decide the claim for damages to the property. This decision was followed by different High courts which I need not enumerate.
8. A Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Haryana State v. Pusa Ram 1979 ACJ 12 held that the claim in respect of damage to the property alone was cognizable by the Claims Tribunal. That was a case in which the State of Haryana preferred a claim for an amount of 3000/- by way of compensation on the allegations that five buffaloes owned by the State were killed by rash and negligent driving of the truck. An objection was raised that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim. Relying on an earlier decision of that court, the Tribunal dismissed the objection. In appeal, the learned Judges of the said court held that bearing reading of amended Section 110(1) of the act, as it stood then, would show that the Tribunal was authorised to adjudicate upon claims for compensation involving damages to any property. Such a case for claim simplicitor was within the cognizance of the Tribunal. The word Injury was interpreted to mean “damage or hurt done or suffered by a person or thing”. Therefore, the person whose property has been damaged in a motor accident would be the person who has sustained the injury within the meaning of Clause (1)(a) of Section 110 of the act. In this case, reliance was placed on another decision of this Court in Shyamabihari v. Shiv Singh 1976 ACJ 95.
9. My attention was drawn to yet another case S. Iqbal Singh v. Jagan Nath 1980 ACJ 220. This was a case in which the person who suffered injuries was driving the vehicle belonging to someone else. While claiming compensation for his own injury, he also claimed compensation for damage to the tempo driven by him. An objection was taken that the claimant not being the owner of the vehicle had no right to claim compensation for damage caused to the tempo. The objection was turned down with the observation that the object of the Act is to prove cheap and speedy remedy to only those who either died or received bodily injuries in the accident, both in respect of their person as well as their own property belonging to others, which is damaged to the accident.
10. In view of the decisions cited above, I am of the opinion that the claim for compensation for damage to the property by a third party is very much maintainable. The controversy which prevailed earlier was set at rest by introducing the amendment by Act No. 47 of 1978. The submission made on behalf of the appellant is, therefore, rejected.
11. The next question to be seen is whether here is any material on record to show that the animals died as a result of the accident on the date as alleged by the claimant. Kawarsingh (A.W.1) Sawalram (A.W.2) and Harcharan Sharma (A.W.3) all stated that on account of the accident, the buffaloes were thrown out of the vehicle. Two of them suffered such injuries on account of which they died after some time in Raipur, while the third suffered a permanent disability of lameness. On behalf of the appellant Jagmal Singh (NAW 1) conductor of the vehicle and Nobarsingh (1 NAW 2) driver of the second vehicle were examined. Both these witnesses admitted that the appellant’s truck turned turtle and fell in to a ditch. The animals carried by it were thrown out. The effort of both these witnesses was to state that the accident took place in such a slow manner that the buffaloes were not at all injured and they case out of the truck of their own. This part of their statement cannot be accepted. The buffaloes are heavy animals and once the truck fell into the ditch, no one can imagine where those animals may have been thrown. I, therefore, relying on the statement of claimant’s witnesses, hold that the buffaloes must have suffered injuries as alleged by them. The statement of the claimant’s witnesses that the two buffaloes died on account of the injuries were not challenged in cross-examination. Similarly, the third buffalo which became lame on account of the injury to the hip bone was also not challenged in cross-examination. It is true that the claimant has not examined the doctor to prove the nature of injuries and the cause of death as also the lameness. It is also true that the police report should have been summoned to show the nuture of injuries suffered by the animals. Omission to do these things, however, is not fatal to the claimant. There is ample evidence to show that the two animals died, while third became lame on account of the accident of the truck.
12. The quantum was also assailed. In my opinion, there is no scope to assail the quantum. The Tribunal has allowed the price of the two buffaloes, the loss in selling the third buffalo and the transportation charges of the animals which died. In my opinion, there is no error in award of compensation made by the Tribunal.
13. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to cost.